SHRI VISHAL D PALANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

7 as under:- “6. We have heard Shri Shah representing assessee and Shri Madhushudhan appearing as Senior Departmental Representative reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned disallowance. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not deducted TDS upon the freight payments in question. Both the lower authorities invoke Section 194C

SHRI VISHAL DILIP PALANY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Vishal Dilip Palani, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Vs Ward 9(4), 903, Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Alopp 0931 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 04.02.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Giving Details Of The Deteriorating Health Of His Father As Well As Financial Problems Faced During The Relevant Period Which Resulted In The Said Delay. Keeping In View The Same, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Learned Departmental Representative Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We, Therefore, Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. Ito Ay : 2009-10 2

7 as under:- “6. We have heard Shri Shah representing assessee and Shri Madhushudhan appearing as Senior Departmental Representative reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned disallowance. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not deducted TDS upon the freight payments in question. Both the lower authorities invoke Section 194C

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194C, 194H, 194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194C, 194H, 194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194C, 194H, 194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

194C, 194H, 194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

SAGAR POWERTEX PVT. LTD. (EARLIER SAGAR AGENCIES PVT.LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Sagar Powertex Pvt. Ltd., J.C.I.T., (Earlier Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Range-8, 803, Sahajanand Complex, Ahmedabad. Shahibaug Road, Shahiibaug Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P

7 12.3 With respect to the other item of assets being mobile and the furniture, we find that the genuineness of such expenses have not been doubted by the authorities below. Furthermore, the amount involved in these assets is of negligible value. Therefore, we are not inclined to uphold the same. In view of the above and after considering

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2970/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T., M/S Deloitee Haskins & Sells, Circle-1(2), Vs. 31-Nutan Bharat Society, Vadodara. Alkapuri, Baroda.

7,39,185/- NIL Grand Total 1,19,90,581/- 60,51,027/- 1,20,705/- 59,51,111/- 11.1 As per the AO the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194-I of the Act with respect to the Banquet charges at the rate of 10% whereas the assessee has deducted the TDS at the rate

AKSHATAM CONSTRUCTION LLP,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1559/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Akshatam Construction Llp, D.C.I.T., 302, Silver Coin, Vs. Circle-1(2), Shrenik Park Char Rasta, Vadodara. Nr. Akota Statdium, Vadodara-390020. Pan: Aaxfa6302N

TDS liability arise under l.T.Act. • The car in this case per se was availed on a rental basis and the limit under 1941 was Rs. 1.8L. • It was not a car facility taken on contractual basis to be charged u/s 194C. 3. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is that the learned

ARVIND LIFESTYLE BRANDS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 1817/Ahd/2016 2012-13 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Arvind Mills Premises, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan No. Aaach7252A 2. 2056/Ahd/2016 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Arvind Lifestyle Circle-1(1)(2), Brands Ltd., Ahmedabad. 3. 2377/Ahd/2017 2013-14 Arvind Lifestyle Brands D.C.I.T, Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad. 4. 2618/Ahd/2017 2014-15 Arvind Lifestyle Brands Ito Ward-1(1)(3) Ltd., Ahmedabad

194C, 194H and 194J of the Act requires the assessee to deduct the TDS with respect to sum/income payable to a resident which has to be deposited in the account of Government Exchequer as provided under section 200 of the Act by the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee shall prepare statement containing the details of tax deducted at source which shall

ARCHIT CORPORATION,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 683/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2014-2015 Archit Corporation Llp, I.T.O., (Earlier Known As Archit Corporation) Vs. Ward-2(3), 54, Ganesh Krupa, Bhavnagar. Vijayraj Nagar, Bhavnagar.

194C of the | Act. Thus, the AO after giving the appellant an opportunity to explain and not finding explanation of the appellant satisfactory, disallowed Rs. 1,44,500/-u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added the same to the income of the appellant. During appeal proceedings, the appellant did not make any submissions on this issue. Accordingly

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is, thus, allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. AO. ITO vs. M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. Asst.Year –2012-13 8. We have heard the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. 9. We find that while deciding the matter in favour of the assessee

GUJARAT SICKLE ANEMIA CONTROL SOCIETY,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

TDS Rs. Deducted F.Y. 2012-13 1 SCHAMKA Technology Pvt. Ltd. 28973253 2% 591290 2 Indian Red Cross Society 796670 2% 16258 3 Valsad Raktdan Kendra 7333450 2% 149663 4 Kruise Pathline Pvt. Ltd. 3783166 2% 77207 5 Heaithfore Technologies Ltd. 14658601 2% 299156 (Formerly known as Religare Technologies Ltd.) 6 Indu Health Research Foundation 6753789 2% 137832 Trust 7

GUJARAT SICKLE ANEMIA CONTROL SOCIETY,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

TDS Rs. Deducted F.Y. 2012-13 1 SCHAMKA Technology Pvt. Ltd. 28973253 2% 591290 2 Indian Red Cross Society 796670 2% 16258 3 Valsad Raktdan Kendra 7333450 2% 149663 4 Kruise Pathline Pvt. Ltd. 3783166 2% 77207 5 Heaithfore Technologies Ltd. 14658601 2% 299156 (Formerly known as Religare Technologies Ltd.) 6 Indu Health Research Foundation 6753789 2% 137832 Trust 7

GUJARAT SICKLE ANEMIA CONTROL SOCIETY,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

TDS Rs. Deducted F.Y. 2012-13 1 SCHAMKA Technology Pvt. Ltd. 28973253 2% 591290 2 Indian Red Cross Society 796670 2% 16258 3 Valsad Raktdan Kendra 7333450 2% 149663 4 Kruise Pathline Pvt. Ltd. 3783166 2% 77207 5 Heaithfore Technologies Ltd. 14658601 2% 299156 (Formerly known as Religare Technologies Ltd.) 6 Indu Health Research Foundation 6753789 2% 137832 Trust 7

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

7. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 136 and submitted that the assessee was the beneficial owner of the asset as the assessee made the payment for the acquision of such assets. Thus the benefit

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

7. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A) assessee is in appeal before us. 8. The ld. AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 136 and submitted that the assessee was the beneficial owner of the asset as the assessee made the payment for the acquision of such assets. Thus the benefit

EXPRESS CARGO CARRIERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

194C. 4. The learned A.O. as well as Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred while not considering that during the course of appellant proceedings the appellant has already filed the quarterly TDS returns of the year under consideration and the non-filing of TDS returns was a technical breach and the same had been concluded, however

BOSCH REXROTH (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS liable, but the AO found that despite being responsible for deducting tax on the total amount, the Assessee failed to do so. The Assessee did not offer any satisfactory explanation for this non-compliance. Accordingly, Ld. Assessing Officer held that given the clear requirements under Sections 194J and 194C of the Act, and the Assessee’s inability to demonstrate